In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation

S.D. New York

In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation

DecidedMarch 27, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-01217

StatusUnknown

This text of In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation (In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DELOECCUTMREONNTIC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 3/27/20 24 In re NURTURE BABY FOOD 1:21-cv-01217-MKV LITIGATION ORDER DENYING WITHOUT This document relates to: PREJUDICE MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION TO STRIKE, AND MOTIONS ALL ACTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs bring this consolidated case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated alleging that Defendant Nurture, Inc. failed to properly disclose the presence of heavy metals and other contaminants in its baby food, in violation of consumer protection statutes and the common law in the states in which Plaintiffs reside. [See ECF No. 157]. The Court, as it is independently obligated to do, has assessed whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in connection with this action. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); In re Tronox Inc., 855 F.3d 84, 95 (2d Cir. 2017); see e.g., Digitel, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 239 F.3d 187, 189–90 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal on subject matter jurisdiction grounds); Curcio v. Abrams, No. 22-693, 2023 WL 31183, at *2 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2023) (summary order) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal). Upon review, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the Declaration of Nega Beru, and the motions for oral argument associated therewith, are hereby DENIED without prejudice based on the apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction as pleaded in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. [ECF Nos.

162, 166, 174, 178; see ECF No. 157]. The Court will simultaneously enter a scheduling order to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard with respect to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the motions pending at docket entries 162, 166, 174, and 178.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 27, 2024 MARY js vigkocrt New York, NY United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DELOECCUTMREONNTIC ALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 3/27/20 24 In re NURTURE BABY FOOD 1:21-cv-01217-MKV LITIGATION ORDER DENYING WITHOUT This document relates to: PREJUDICE MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION TO STRIKE, AND MOTIONS ALL ACTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs bring this consolidated case individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated alleging that Defendant Nurture, Inc. failed to properly disclose the presence of heavy metals and other contaminants in its baby food, in violation of consumer protection statutes and the common law in the states in which Plaintiffs reside. [See ECF No. 157]. The Court, as it is independently obligated to do, has assessed whether it has subject matter jurisdiction in connection with this action. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); In re Tronox Inc., 855 F.3d 84, 95 (2d Cir. 2017); see e.g., Digitel, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., 239 F.3d 187, 189–90 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal on subject matter jurisdiction grounds); Curcio v. Abrams, No. 22-693, 2023 WL 31183, at *2 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2023) (summary order) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal). Upon review, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the Declaration of Nega Beru, and the motions for oral argument associated therewith, are hereby DENIED without prejudice based on the apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction as pleaded in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. [ECF Nos.

162, 166, 174, 178; see ECF No. 157]. The Court will simultaneously enter a scheduling order to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard with respect to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the motions pending at docket entries 162, 166, 174, and 178.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 27, 2024 MARY js vigkocrt New York, NY United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nurture-baby-food-litigation-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack